STATE OF GUJARAT Vs. SURYAKANT P PATEL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE State of Gujarat has preferred the present appeal under section 39 of the Arbitration Act against the judgment and order passed by the learned Civil Judge, Senior Division, Ahmedabad Rural at Mirzapur dated 26th April 1990 in Special Civil Suit No. 415 of 1988 whereby the application, Exh.18, and the objections raised therein were rejected and the award passed by the learned Arbitrator, with certain modifications, was made rule of the Court.

(2.) MS . Pandit, learned Assistant Government Pleader submitted that the State has preferred the present appeal on the ground that the award given by the Arbitrator Shri Iyengar was non -speaking and unreasoned award. Learned AGP submitted that the question with regard to the validity of the unreasoned and non -speaking award is awaiting the determination by the larger Bench of the Honourable Supreme Court. She further submitted that the learned Civil Judge has not taken into consideration the contention raised before the Court in its true perspective while dismissing the application, Exh.18, and the objections raised therein. The learned Judge has erred in not appreciating the objections raised by the State that the Arbitrator has no jurisdiction to award pendente lite interest. It is also overlooked by the learned Judge that the Arbitrator has exceeded his jurisdiction in considering claims which were not within his purview. Learned AGP further submitted that the learned Judge has not appreciated the contentions raised on behalf of the State, more particularly with reference to claim No.3 and the costs of the arbitration. She further submitted that the learned Judge ought to have held that the award passed by the Arbitrator was without examining and considering the pleading of factual aspects and the evidence as well as documents available on the record of the case and, therefore, the same is liable to be set aside. The learned AGP further submitted that even the costs awarded to the tune of Rs.5000/ - is on the higher side. Thus, it is submitted by the learned AGP that the impugned judgment and order is required to be quashed and set aside and the appeal deserves to be allowed.

(3.) MR . K.G. Sukhwani, appearing on behalf of the respondent vehemently submitted that both the parties had agreed to refer the matter to the Arbitrator in order to resolve the entire dispute. The Arbitrator has, after considering the submissions made on behalf of the State as well as by the respondent and perusing the entire gamut of documents produced before him, passed the award, and, therefore, no interference was made by the learned trial Judge, and in that view of the matter, the award passed by the Arbitrator and confirmed by the learned Civil Judge with certain modifications requires to be upheld. Mr. Sukhwani, learned advocate has placed reliance on the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of RAJASTHAN STATE MINES and MINERALS LTD. V/S. EASTERN ENGG. ENTERPRISES reported in (1999) 9 SCC 283 and submitted that the jurisdiction of the Court is very limited in the case when the matter is referred to the Arbitrator, and the Court cannot speculate as to reasons or probe mental process of the arbitrator. He further submitted that the court can set aside the award only if the arbitrator has acted beyond his jurisdiction. In view of the ratio laid down by the Apex Court, learned advocate submitted that it s a fit case where no interference is called for and the appeal preferred by the State deserves to be dismissed.